ARMY WORKLOAD 

AND 

PERFORMANCE 

SYSTEM

Actions Needed to 

Complete Assessment 

of Unnecessary 

Overlap with Logistics

Modernization 

Program

Report to Congressional Addressees

February 2014

GAO-14-266

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-266, a report to 

congressional addressees

February 2014

ARMY WORKLOAD AND PERFORMANCE 

SYSTEM

Actions Needed to Complete Assessment of 

Unnecessary Overlap with Logistics Modernization 

Program

Why GAO Did This Study

AWPS is an information system that 

produces management reports 

intended to link the Army’s industrial 

workload demands to workforce 

requirements. The Army has spent 

over $90 million on the system through 

fiscal year 2013 and plans to spend 

approximately $35.6 million over the 

next 5 years. AWPS relies on data 

from LMP, which was implemented 

after AWPS, and prior GAO reports 

have noted the potential overlap

between AWPS and LMP. Pub. L. No. 

111-139 mandates that GAO identify 

federal programs, agencies, offices, 

and initiatives that have duplicative 

goals or activities. This review 

evaluates the extent to which the Army

has (1) followed certain applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for implementing AWPS and (2) 

assessed whether there is 

unnecessary overlap between AWPS 

and LMP. GAO reviewed laws,

regulations, and prior GAO reports;

analyzed Army documents related to

its assessment of unnecessary overlap 

between AWPS and LMP; and 

interviewed Army officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations 

to the Army to (1) strengthen oversight 

for completing the update to the AWPS 

master plan, (2) direct that AWPS be 

submitted to USAMAA for validation,

(3) identify a specific senior-level AMC 

manager or committee to provide 

oversight of the project team’s efforts, 

and (4) establish a fully developed and 

documented approach for the team’s 

assessment that includes a milestone 

for completing this effort. GAO 

requested comments from the Army, 

but none were provided.

What GAO Found

The Army has not followed certain applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for implementing the Army Workload and Performance System 

(AWPS). The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 requires 

the Secretary of the Army to submit annual progress reports to Congress on the 

implementation of the AWPS master plan until the Secretary certifies to 

Congress that AWPS is fully implemented. Although the Secretary has not yet 

made this certification, the Army has not been submitting progress reports. 

According to Army officials, the Army does not plan to submit progress reports 

until a revised master plan for AWPS is completed. However, for many years the 

Army has been unable to complete an update to the master plan due to a lack of 

oversight. Additionally, the Army has not validated AWPS as a manpower 

requirements determination tool. Army regulation states that the U.S. Army 

Manpower and Analysis Agency (USAMAA) is responsible for reviewing and 

validating manpower requirements models like AWPS and that major 

commands—such as the Army Materiel Command (AMC)—are responsible for 

submitting their models to USAMAA for validation. AMC directs the activities of 

Army industrial sites and is the primary user of AWPS. USAMAA and AMC 

officials have discussed the need for AWPS to be validated, but AWPS has not 

yet been submitted to USAMAA for validation. USAMAA officials initially 

contacted AMC regarding submitting AWPS for validation; however, at the time,

AMC was not prepared to proceed. Later, when ready to seek validation, AWPS 

officials told GAO they asked for assistance from USAMAA, but additional 

assistance had not yet been provided. Because USAMAA officials involved in 

these earlier contacts subsequently left USAMAA, GAO was unable to 

corroborate that USAMAA did not respond to AWPS officials’ request for 

assistance. Through USAMAA validation, the Army would have greater 

assurance that AWPS workforce management reports are accurate.

The Army has begun to assess whether unnecessary overlap exists between 

AWPS and the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), but its overall progress

has been limited. At the direction of AMC leadership, a project team was 

established and has begun to assess the extent to which AWPS’s software

functionality can be replaced with existing or future LMP functionality. The team 

has distributed surveys to AWPS users to collect information on how they use 

AWPS, and whether they use other tools—such as LMP—to provide similar 

functionality. Initial responses to this survey indicate the potential for some 

overlap between AWPS and LMP. Identifying unnecessary overlap among 

government programs or activities is important because overlap can lead to 

unnecessary duplication and can result in unnecessary costs and less-efficient 

and less-effective services. However, the overall progress of the team’s 

assessment has been limited, due primarily to the absence of senior-level 

leadership attention and involvement and to the lack of a fully developed and 

documented approach for the assessment. Best practices have shown that 

sustained leadership attention and involvement can help organizations achieve 

positive results, and internal control standards call for proper documentation of 

evaluation processes. The absence of these elements increases the risk that the 

Army will not make progress in identifying and eliminating unnecessary overlap 

between AWPS and LMP.

View GAO-14-266. For more information, 

contact Zina Merritt at (202) 512-5257 or 

merrittz@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

Letter 1

Background 4

The Army Has Not Followed Certain Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements for Implementing AWPS 7

The Army Has Begun to Assess Unnecessary Overlap between 

AWPS and LMP, but Progress Has Been Limited 11

Conclusions 15

Recommendations for Executive Action 15

Agency Comments 16

Appendix I GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 18

Table

Table 1: Actual and Projected Army Workload and Performance 

System (AWPS) Costs, Fiscal Years 2011-2018 7

Abbreviations

AMC Army Materiel Command

AWPS Army Workload and Performance System 

DOD Department of Defense

LMP Logistics Modernization Program

USAMAA U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency

Contents

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

February 28, 2014

Congressional Addressees

For more than a decade, the Army has been using the automated Army 

Workload and Performance System (AWPS) to support workforce 

decision making at its industrial sites, which include maintenance depots, 

manufacturing arsenals, and other facilities. AWPS produces 

management reports and decision support tools intended to assist the 

Army in linking its industrial workload demands to its workforce 

requirements. For example, AWPS generates reports in the form of 

graphics and tables that compare planned workload against the available 

workforce and that assess both the cost and schedule performance for 

production programs at industrial sites. The Army Materiel Command 

(AMC) directs the activities of the Army’s industrial sites and is the 

primary user of AWPS. According to the AWPS program management 

office, the Army has spent over $90 million on AWPS from its inception in 

1996 through fiscal year 2013, and plans to spend approximately $35.6 

million on the system over the next 5 years.

The Army’s Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) is an enterprise 

resource planning system that, like AWPS, also supports AMC industrial 

operations. The Army initiated LMP in 1999 to replace two aging materiel 

management systems—the Commodity Command Standard System and 

the Standard Depot System. A modified commercial off-the-shelf system, 

LMP was intended to improve business processes and practices in areas 

such as operations at depots and arsenals and inventory management. 

By providing a single source of data and integrated decision-making tools, 

LMP was expected to increase efficiencies in AMC operations—such as 

buying and managing spare and repair parts and conducting depot 

maintenance. It was deployed during three phases beginning in 2003. At 

that time, LMP became the primary source of data for AWPS.
Page 2 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

Since 1998, we have published several reports that discuss the Army’s 

implementation and use of AWPS.1 We have reported on, among other 

issues, the Army’s compliance with statutory requirements for reporting 

on the status of AWPS to Congress. Our prior reports have also 

discussed the relationship between AWPS and LMP. For example, in our 

October 2002 report on AWPS,2 we found that the 2002 AWPS master 

plan3 did not address potential overlap between the functionality provided 

by AWPS and that provided by LMP.4 We reported that Army and 

contractor officials told us that there was some potential overlap and 

redundancy in the two systems’ capabilities. For example, LMP had the 

same capability as an AWPS software module that allows users to 

compare actual resource expenditures against production plans, 

scheduled workload, and related budgets for specific projects. In our 

November 2013 report on LMP, we also found that one maintenance 

depot had created a tool in Microsoft Excel that extracts data from LMP 

and develops management reports similar to those created by AWPS.5

GAO is statutorily required to identify and report annually to Congress on 

federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives, either within 

 1

GAO, Force Structure: Army Efforts to Improve Efficiency of Institutional Forces Have 

Produced Few Results, GAO/NSIAD-98-65 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 1998); Defense 

Logistics: Army Should Assess Cost and Benefits of the Workload Performance System 

Expansion, GAO/NSIAD-00-16 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 1999); Army Logistics: Report 

on Manpower and Workload System Inadequate and System Interface Untested, 

GAO-03-21 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 30, 2002); Defense Logistics: Oversight and a 

Coordinated Strategy Needed to Implement the Army Workload and Performance System, 

GAO-11-566R (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2011).

2

GAO-03-21.

3

The Army first outlined its strategy for designing and fielding AWPS in an April 1999 

master plan and updated that master plan in May 2001 in response to congressional 

direction. The purpose of the AWPS master plan is to establish a management framework 

for AWPS for the future and for enabling AWPS to effectively and efficiently respond to 

customer requirements. It addresses the status of AWPS, the end state, the roadmap, and 

progress measurement.

4

Overlap occurs when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar 

activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. Duplication, a 

related issue, occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same 

activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries.

5

GAO, Defense Logistics: Army Should Track Financial Benefits Realized from its 

Logistics Modernization Program, GAO-14-51 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2013). We 

recommended that the Army develop and implement a process to track the extent of 

financial benefits realized from the use of LMP, and the Army concurred with our 

recommendation and stated that it will develop a process to track the extent of financial 

benefits recognized within LMP, which will be linked to the LMP performance baseline.
Page 3 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

departments or government-wide, that have duplicative goals or 

activities.6 Under this mandate, our reviews have identified potential 

unnecessary overlap and fragmentation, as well as duplication.7

Accordingly, this review evaluates the extent to which the Army has (1) 

followed certain applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for 

implementing AWPS and (2) assessed whether there is unnecessary 

overlap between AWPS and LMP.

To determine the extent to which the Army has followed certain statutory 

and regulatory requirements for implementing AWPS, we reviewed laws, 

congressional committee reports, and Army regulations related to AWPS. 

To obtain information on progress made and actions taken to implement 

these requirements, we met with Army officials responsible for overseeing 

and using AWPS. Specifically, we met with officials from the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs); United 

States Army Manpower Analysis Agency (USAMAA); Office of the Army 

General Counsel; Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army, G-4 

(Maintenance); AMC headquarters; and AWPS program management 

office. We also obtained and reviewed other documentation related to 

AWPS, including a draft of the updated AWPS master plan and USAMAA 

documentation on the validation process for manpower requirements 

models. We also reviewed our prior reports on AWPS and followed up on 

issues that we had previously identified and recommendations that we 

had made.

To determine the extent to which the Army has assessed unnecessary 

overlap between AWPS and LMP, we reviewed our prior reports that 

discuss these systems and that outline best practices to effectively 

manage change, achieve positive results, and make sound investment 

decisions. We met with officials from AMC headquarters and the AWPS 

program management office to discuss the efforts of the AMC project 

team and its assessment of unnecessary overlap between AWPS and 

LMP. We obtained and reviewed documentation related to these efforts, 

including the documents from AMC leadership that initiated the project 

team’s assessment, the team’s draft charter, minutes from team 

meetings, and the team’s survey on AWPS usage that was distributed to 

 6

Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. § 712 Note. See List of 

Addressees at the end of this letter for the list of congressional addressees for this work.

7

GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and 

Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 9, 2013).
Page 4 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

AWPS users. We reviewed some aspects of the project team’s 

methodology for conducting its assessment—such as preliminary datacollection efforts—but did not evaluate other aspects because the Army 

had not yet fully developed and documented them at the time of our 

review. To identify how AMC industrial sites reported using AWPS or 

other tools—such as LMP—to manage their operations, we analyzed 

consolidated survey responses from the seven AMC sites that replied to 

the project team.8 We also observed demonstrations from Army officials 

on how AWPS is used to generate reports.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 to February 2014 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The Army began developing AWPS in 1996 at the direction of the House 

National Security Committee (now known as the House Armed Services 

Committee),9 and started fielding the system to its maintenance depots 

that year. AWPS was not intended to directly replace any single existing 

system; rather it was aimed at resolving deficiencies in the Army’s civilian 

manpower requirements determination process by providing analytically 

based workload forecasts to support workforce requirements.10 In 1998, 

the committee further directed the Army to develop a master plan for 

implementing AWPS.11 We subsequently reviewed the master plan and 

 8

We reviewed the consolidated survey responses submitted by the leadership at two life 

cycle management commands (Aviation and Missile Command and Joint Munitions 

Command), three maintenance depots (Anniston Army Depot, Red River Army Depot, and 

Tobyhanna Army Depot), and two manufacturing arsenals (Rock Island Arsenal and 

Watervliet Arsenal).

9

Committee on National Security, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1996, H.R. Rep. No. 104-131 (1995).

10The Army Audit Agency reported in 1992 and 1994 that the Army did not know its 

workload and thus could neither justify personnel needs and budgets nor improve 

productivity and efficiency. The Army subsequently determined that it had a material 

weakness, under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act, with determining 

institutional personnel requirements without an analysis of the workload. AWPS was part 

of the Army’s plans for addressing this material weakness.

11Committee on National Security, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1999, H.R. Rep. No. 105-532 (1998).

Background
Page 5 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

recommended, among other things, that the Army examine its existing 

program management and oversight structure as it continued to 

implement AWPS.12 The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with 

the recommendations and cited corrective actions it would take, including 

having the Secretary of the Army assess the adequacy of existing 

program management and oversight structures responsible for system 

development and implementation. In June 2001, the Army sent an 

updated master plan to the House and Senate Committees on Armed 

Services.

Section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2002 encouraged the sharing of data between AWPS and LMP (which 

had been in development since 1999) and identified several requirements 

related to AWPS.13 Among other things, the law required: the Army to 

continue to use AWPS as a standard Army-wide manpower system under 

the supervision and management of the Secretary of the Army; the 

Secretary of the Army to submit annual progress reports to Congress on 

the implementation of the AWPS master plan until the Secretary certifies 

to Congress that AWPS is fully implemented;14 and GAO to submit 

evaluations of each of the Army’s annual reports not later than 60 days 

after the Army has issued them to Congress. We evaluated the Army’s 

May 2002 progress report to Congress and recommended several actions 

to improve the quality of the Army’s annual progress reports and enhance 

the efficiency and effectiveness of AWPS.15 DOD concurred with our 

recommendations and stated that it would take steps to implement them. 

For example, the Army said it was in the final stages of updating the 

AWPS master plan and that it would provide it to Congress by November 

2007. However, the Army ultimately did not submit an updated master 

plan. In our most recent report on AWPS in July 2011, we found that the 

Army was using AWPS to generate reports related to managing its 

workload and workforce issues but that the accuracy of those reports 

varied.16 We also found that the Army’s oversight of AWPS was 

 12GAO/NSIAD-00-16.

13Pub. L. No. 107-107 (2001).

14As we have previously reported, while the basic depot maintenance application had 

been certified as fully operational, the Army planned to continue developing AWPS to 

enhance its capabilities to provide more-refined information. Once development was 

complete and AWPS was fully operational at all sites identified in the master plan, AWPS 

could be certified as fully implemented.

15GAO-03-21.

16GAO-11-566R.
Page 6 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

fragmented among several organizations and that the Army had not been 

submitting annual reports on the implementation of the 2002 AWPS 

master plan. Accordingly, we recommended that an organization be 

identified for overall oversight of AWPS and that annual reports on AWPS 

implementation be submitted to Congress, as required by law. The Army 

concurred with these recommendations and stated that it would update 

the master plan and report to Congress by October 2011. We discuss 

later in this report the status of the Army’s efforts to address this 

recommendation.

AWPS has several modules that enable users to generate products that 

include the workload and resources report,17 which compares forecast 

workload against the available workforce; performance management and 

control tables, which assess the cost and schedule performance for 

production programs; and a report used by AMC leadership to monitor the 

status of efforts to repair and recapitalize equipment returning from 

overseas operations. To do so, AWPS pulls LMP data on labor costs as 

well as the personnel time required to complete repairs, among other 

things. Officials from Army G-4 (Maintenance) also use AWPS reports to 

assess whether the Army is maintaining a core depot-level maintenance 

and repair capability.18 As of October 2013, approximately 1,400 

personnel had access to the system at 15 AMC industrial sites.19

The Army spent approximately $1.4 billion on LMP through fiscal year 

2012, and its total life cycle cost from fiscal years 2000 to 2026 is more 

than $4 billion. According to the AWPS program management office, the 

Army has spent over $90 million on AWPS from its inception in 1996 

through the end of fiscal year 2013. Table 1 shows the Army’s reported 

actual and projected AWPS costs from fiscal year 2011—when we issued 

our last report on AWPS—through fiscal year 2018. The costs include 

 17The system defines workload demands in terms of the amount of work projected to be 

completed in an 8-hour period and labels each such period as one “resource.”

18Core depot-level maintenance and repair capability is an element of core logistics 

capability, which refers to capability that is government-owned and government-operated 

to ensure a ready and controlled source of technical competence and resources 

necessary to ensure effective and timely response to mobilizations, contingencies, or 

other emergencies. 10 U.S.C. § 2464.

19The 15 AMC industrial sites are Anniston Army Depot, Anniston Defense Munitions 

Center, Blue Grass Army Depot, Corpus Christi Army Depot, Crane Army Ammunition 

Activity, Letterkenny Army Depot, Letterkenny Munitions Center, McAlester Army 

Ammunition Plant, Pine Bluff Arsenal, Red River Army Depot, Rock Island Arsenal, Sierra 

Army Depot, Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tooele Army Depot, and Watervliet Arsenal.
Page 7 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

government and contractor personnel expenses and hardware and 

software upgrades.

Table 1: Actual and Projected Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS) 

Costs, Fiscal Years 2011-2018

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year Annual costs

2011 $12.3

2012 7.9

2013 7.9

2014 6.9 

2015 6.9

2016 6.9

2017 7.9

2018 7.0

Source: AWPS program management office.

Note: Figures for 2011 to 2013 are actual costs; figures for 2014 to 2018 are projected costs.

The Army has not submitted the required annual progress reports to 

Congress on the implementation of the AWPS master plan since 2002. 

Section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2002 requires the Secretary of the Army to submit annual progress 

reports to Congress on the implementation of the AWPS master plan until 

the Secretary certifies to Congress that AWPS is fully implemented. The 

Army submitted its first AWPS progress report to Congress in 2002 in the 

form of a revised version of the AWPS master plan. Although the 

Secretary of the Army has not yet certified to Congress that AWPS is fully 

implemented, the Army has not submitted any further annual reports. 

Because we recommended in July 2011 that the Army submit annual 

reports on the implementation of the AWPS master plan, as required by 

The Army Has Not 

Followed Certain 

Statutory and 

Regulatory 

Requirements for 

Implementing AWPS

The Army Has Not 

Submitted Annual 

Progress Reports to 

Congress on AWPS 

Implementation
Page 8 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

law, we are not making a new recommendation on this issue in this 

report.20

The Army has not been submitting annual reports because, according to 

Army officials, it does not plan to submit progress reports until the revised 

master plan is completed. Army officials stated that AMC, in coordination 

with other Army offices, has been drafting an update to the AWPS master 

plan since July 2011—when GAO’s last report on AWPS was issued—in 

order to reflect changes regarding AWPS status and future use. However, 

it has not yet been completed and submitted to Congress, and officials 

were uncertain when that would occur. The AWPS master plan is still 

important, as AWPS has not yet been certified as fully implemented. 

According to officials, the Army has not completed the AWPS master plan 

due to oversight challenges arising from a series of internal 

reorganizations and multiple transfers of responsibility for AWPS within 

the Army. Another contributing factor, according to AMC officials, was the 

loss of personnel with knowledge of AWPS that has occurred since the 

AWPS master plan was last updated in 2002. In response to one of our 

July 2011 recommendations, the Army identified the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) as the 

Army organization with overall oversight of AWPS. However, we did not 

find evidence that this office has had an active role in overseeing the 

completion of the AWPS master plan. Internal control standards identify 

the need for oversight, including responsibilities such as setting and 

monitoring objectives, as important.21 In the absence of oversight, 

completion of the AWPS master plan could be further delayed, resulting 

in continued lack of submission of annual progress reports on AWPS 

implementation to Congress.

The Army has not validated AWPS as a manpower requirements 

determination tool as required by regulation. In October 2001, the 

Secretary of the Army designated AWPS as an Army-wide decision 

support, manpower determination, and management tool for applicable 

workload and workforce in the Army. According to Army regulation, 

USAMAA is responsible for reviewing and validating manpower 

requirements models. Army Regulation 570-4, which establishes policies 

 20GAO-11-566R.

21GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

The Army Has Not 

Validated AWPS as a 

Manpower Requirements 

Determination Tool
Page 9 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

and procedures for manpower management, states that USAMAA is 

responsible for reviewing and recommending approval of manpower 

requirements models developed by major commands.22 Army Regulation 

71-32, which establishes policy for force development and 

documentation, states that the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Manpower and Reserve Affairs), to which USAMAA provides assistance, 

is responsible for validating manpower models.23 Such reviews are to 

occur at least every 3 years, or more often as needed, and are part of 

USAMAA’s responsibility to ensure consistent application of Army 

manpower policies. Army regulation also states that major commands—

such as AMC—are responsible for submitting manpower models to 

USAMAA for approval, along with background information to support 

assumptions and equations in existing and proposed models. According 

to USAMAA officials, AWPS has not been validated as a manpower 

requirements determination tool in accordance with Army regulation, and 

therefore they cannot be assured that AWPS reports on workforce 

requirements are accurate.

USAMAA officials stated that they have previously asked AMC whether it 

would submit AWPS for review and validation, but AMC has not yet done 

so. USAMAA officials told us they contacted AMC in late 2011 or early 

2012 regarding submitting AWPS for validation. At the time, AMC was not 

prepared to move forward with validation. However, officials from the 

AWPS program management office told us that in April 2012 they asked 

for assistance from USAMAA regarding submitting AWPS for validation, 

but that additional assistance had not yet been provided. Because

USAMAA officials involved in these earlier contacts subsequently left 

USAMAA, we were unable to corroborate that USAMAA did not respond 

to AWPS program management officials’ requests for assistance. A 

senior official within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Manpower and Reserve Affairs) told us that USAMAA had provided 

assistance to the AWPS program management office but that AWPS had 

not been formally submitted for review and validation.

USAMAA has published written guidance on how to develop and validate 

a manpower modeling tool. This guidance is designed for developing new 

tools and is not tailored for submission of an existing tool, such as AWPS, 

 22Department of the Army, Manpower and Equipment Control: Manpower Management, 

Regulation 570-4 (Feb. 8, 2006).

23Department of the Army, Force Development: Force Development and Documentation, 

Regulation 71-32 (July 1, 2013).
Page 10 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

for validation. For example, the primary validation process identified in the 

guidance begins at the outset of the model-development process, which 

is not applicable for an existing tool. However, USAMAA officials provided 

us with an explanation of what would be necessary to validate AWPS as 

a manpower requirements determination tool and indicated that they work 

collaboratively with Army organizations to support the model-validation 

process. The process would include a briefing from AMC that 

demonstrates the AWPS manpower model. USAMAA officials could also 

ask AMC for further information on the model. USAMAA would then test 

the model to ensure the accuracy of what was presented by AMC. If any 

issues were to arise during testing, USAMAA would work with AMC to 

address them before validating the AWPS manpower model. Officials 

from the AWPS program management office stated that although 

USAMAA has not validated AWPS as a manpower requirements 

determination tool, AWPS has undergone prior reviews by other entities, 

to include an assessment of the data interface between AWPS and LMP. 

As of September 2013, the draft of the updated AWPS master plan states 

that the Army plans to submit AWPS to USAMAA for validation in the next 

1 to 4 years, and AMC officials also acknowledged the need to have 

AWPS validated by USAMAA.

Although AWPS has not been validated, Army officials stated that AWPS 

reports continue to be used for workforce planning, including the 

development of budget estimates for future workload and workforce 

needs. For example, AMC industrial sites are using AWPS forecasting 

reports to make decisions on how to size their workforce to the sites’

projected workload. We previously reported that the accuracy of reports 

generated from AWPS varied.24 Through USAMAA validation of AWPS, 

the Army would have greater assurance that reports of these types, 

linking workload demand to workforce requirements, are accurate.

 24GAO-11-566R.
Page 11 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

The Army has begun to assess whether unnecessary overlap exists 

between AWPS and LMP and has begun its assessment by initiating 

data-collection and analysis efforts. However, its overall progress—

including the development of a business case analysis—has been limited, 

due primarily to the absence of senior-level leadership involvement and 

attention and the lack of a fully developed and documented approach for 

conducting the assessment, including an established milestone for 

completing it. GAO has found that overlap among government programs 

or activities can lead to unnecessary duplication and can result in 

unnecessary costs and less-efficient and less-effective services.25

Eliminating unnecessary overlap is particularly important given the current 

budgetary situation that the federal government and DOD face.

In December 2012, the AMC Commanding General and Deputy 

Commanding General directed that a plan be developed to “sunset,” or 

retire, AWPS and transition its functionality to another system, such as 

LMP.26 AMC officials stated that this task was assigned by AMC 

leadership as a result of feedback provided by industrial sites indicating 

that overlap existed between LMP and AWPS and questioning whether it 

was necessary for sites to continue to pay operating expenses for both 

AWPS and LMP.27 In response, a project team was established within 

AMC and started meeting in February 2013 to assess unnecessary 

overlap between AWPS and LMP.28 As part of this effort, the team has 

begun to evaluate the extent to which software functionality currently 

provided by AWPS can be provided by LMP—either through LMP’s 

existing functionality or through the expansion of functionality planned for 

LMP Increment 2. AMC officials stated that LMP Increment 2 will include 

a software module called Business Objects that will be able to produce 

 25GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save 

Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-3188P (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011).

26AMC officials stated that if a decision is made to retire AWPS, they will request that 

Congress relieve the Army of the statutory requirement to use AWPS as a standard 

manpower system.

27According to officials with the AWPS program management office, AWPS operating 

expenses are funded through Army working capital fund payments from the AMC 

industrial sites, and each site’s payment is based on the amount of workload conducted at 

the site.

28According to the draft charter for the project team, the team was tasked to prepare a 

plan to sunset AWPS, but the functionality of the system must remain available to users. 

The AWPS project team’s efforts will include determining the feasibility of implementing 

AWPS requirements into an existing planning tool, determining budgetary needs and 

legislative change requirements, and identifying a funding source.

The Army Has Begun 

to Assess 

Unnecessary Overlap 

between AWPS and 

LMP, but Progress 

Has Been Limited
Page 12 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

reports similar to some of those produced by AWPS—such as charts 

outlining cost performance and schedule performance for projects at AMC 

industrial sites. Team members stated they will develop a business case 

analysis that will likely recommend one of three courses of action for 

providing AWPS functionality: retire AWPS completely and provide 

functionality with another system, such as LMP; provide functionality 

partially with AWPS and partially with another system, such as LMP; or 

continue to provide functionality solely with AWPS.

The project team has begun developing its assessment by initiating datacollection and analysis efforts. Specific actions to complete the 

assessment have been identified, such as surveying AWPS users, 

holding a design workshop to determine what AWPS functionality can be 

provided by LMP or another tool, and developing the business case 

analysis mentioned previously. The team has received a demonstration 

on the current functionality provided by AWPS and LMP and has 

distributed surveys to Army personnel with AWPS accounts to collect 

information on how they use the system. Among other things, the survey 

asked whether personnel used AWPS, for what purposes, and how often. 

The survey also asked whether they used another tool—such as LMP—to 

provide similar functionality. The team received survey responses from 

several AMC sites, including consolidated responses signed by site 

leadership (e.g., depot commander) and individual responses from AWPS 

account holders.29 At the time of our assessment, consolidated responses 

were provided by 7 of 15 AMC sites—two life cycle management 

commands, three maintenance depots, and two manufacturing arsenals.

Based on our review of the consolidated responses to the project team’s 

survey and our previous work, there is potential for some unnecessary 

overlap between AWPS and LMP, but further analysis is necessary. The 

survey lists several AWPS modules and asks users to report the time 

spent using each module, as well as the time spent using other tools to 

perform similar functions. All seven consolidated survey responses 

reported that AMC sites use some AWPS modules, but they also all 

reported using other tools—including LMP—to provide similar 

functionality. However, the project team has not assessed the reason 

these sites use multiple tools to perform similar functions and therefore it 

has not yet determined the extent of unnecessary overlap that may exist. 

For example, Anniston Army Depot and Rock Island Arsenal responded 

 29We did not analyze the individual responses from AWPS account holders. Project team 

members stated that those responses would be included in their overall analysis of the 

survey results. 
Page 13 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

that they use reports available in LMP to assess cost performance and

schedule performance for projects at their sites. Other sites responded 

that they use locally developed tools that extract data from LMP and 

produce reports similar to those in AWPS. For example, Red River Army 

Depot responded that it has developed a depot information visualization 

system that extracts data from LMP and links planned workload to 

workforce requirements. In addition, Tobyhanna Army Depot is using a 

tool in Microsoft Excel that extracts data from LMP and develops 

management reports similar to those created by AWPS. According to 

Tobyhanna’s survey response, this tool allows the depot to compare 

planned workload against its available workforce. Officials from the 

AWPS program management office stated that they plan to analyze the 

survey results and follow up with survey responders to obtain additional 

information. Furthermore, as previously noted, AMC initiated its 

assessment as a result of feedback provided by industrial sites indicating 

that overlap existed between LMP and AWPS.

Although the project team has made progress on the user survey, its 

progress in other areas of the assessment has been more limited. The 

team’s charter—which it began drafting in February 2013 to guide its 

operations—has not been completed. Team meetings have not been held 

regularly, and Army officials stated that attendance at these meetings is 

not always a high priority for team members. The AWPS program 

management office first provided a demonstration of AWPS functionality 

to the team in March 2013, but the LMP product office did not provide a 

similar demonstration of LMP functionality until December 2013.30

Milestones for some key actions—such as developing a business case for 

how to most cost-effectively provide AWPS functionality—have not been 

established, while milestones set for other actions have been missed. For 

example, the team originally planned to complete its analysis of survey 

responses from AWPS users by August 2013. However, as of December 

2013, it had not completed this analysis.

Progress on the Army’s assessment of AWPS has been limited due to the 

absence of senior-level leadership attention and involvement. Best 

practices have shown that sustained leadership attention and involvement 

can help organizations make lasting changes and achieve positive 

results.

31 In addition, these best practices indicate that a strong and stable 

 30According to project team members, the LMP product office did not join the project team 

until November 2013.

31GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and 

Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).
Page 14 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

team responsible for managing change is also essential to ensure that the 

effort receives the attention it needs to be sustained and successful. 

Having a strong, stable team for this assessment is particularly important 

because any changes made to AWPS and LMP could potentially affect 

numerous functions and activities across AMC. The project team is 

composed of representatives from various offices within AMC. The team 

leader works in the AMC G-1 (Personnel) office and has provided G-1 

management with updates on the team’s progress. The other team 

members, however, do not work for G-1 and therefore do not officially 

report to the team leader or G-1 management; team members cited this 

leadership structure as a factor contributing to the team’s limited 

progress. Project team members stated that other than a June 2013 

progress update to an AMC committee overseeing the implementation of 

LMP, no senior-level AMC manager or committee has requested updates 

on the team’s progress in assessing unnecessary overlap between 

AWPS and LMP and developing a plan to potentially retire AWPS.

Additionally, the team’s progress has been limited due to the lack of a 

fully developed and documented approach, including an established 

milestone for completing the assessment and recommending a course of 

action for providing AWPS functionality. When the task was originally 

assigned in December 2012, the AMC Commanding General and Deputy 

Commanding General did not establish a milestone for when the project 

team should complete the assessment, and the project team itself has not 

yet established a completion date. Standards for Internal Control call for 

proper documentation of evaluation processes.32 In addition, best 

practices have shown that a well-planned schedule—with milestones for 

completing activities—is a fundamental management tool that can help 

government programs use public funds effectively by specifying when 

work will be performed in the future and measuring program performance 

against an approved plan.33 The absence of senior-level AMC leadership 

involvement and attention, as well as the lack of a fully developed and 

documented approach that includes an established milestone for 

completion, increases the risk that the Army will not make sustained 

progress in its efforts to identify and eliminate unnecessary overlap 

between AWPS and LMP.

 32GAO, Internal Control Standards: Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington D.C.: Aug. 2001).

33GAO, GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules, 

GAO-12-120G (Washington, D.C.: May 2012).
Page 15 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

The Army has experienced delays in completing an update to the AWPS 

master plan. In the absence of strong oversight, completion of the master 

plan could be further delayed, resulting in continued lack of submission of 

statutorily required annual progress reports to Congress on the system’s 

implementation. In addition, AWPS was developed to address 

deficiencies in the Army’s manpower requirements determination 

process, but the Army has not validated AWPS as a manpower 

requirements determination tool in accordance with regulation and 

therefore lacks assurance that AWPS is producing valid results for 

workforce planning. Further, GAO has found that eliminating unnecessary 

overlap among government programs or activities can help prevent 

unnecessary duplication and help agencies provide more-efficient and 

more-effective services. Eliminating unnecessary overlap is particularly 

important given the current budgetary situation that the federal 

government and DOD face. The Army’s current effort to assess 

unnecessary overlap between AWPS and LMP could facilitate its ability to 

make a sound business decision on how to most cost-effectively provide 

AWPS functionality—which could include retiring AWPS and transitioning 

its functionality to LMP. Timely and effective actions to complete the 

assessment could improve the Army’s ability to support industrial 

operations in the most-efficient and cost-effective manner by minimizing 

unnecessary overlap between these two information systems. In the 

absence of increased leadership attention and involvement and without a 

fully developed and documented approach for this assessment, including 

an established milestone for completion, the Army could continue—

unnecessarily—to spend millions of dollars annually on AWPS.

We are recommending that the Secretary of the Army take four actions.

To ensure completion of the update to the AWPS master plan, we 

recommend that the Secretary of the Army direct the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) to strengthen oversight of 

the plan’s development, review, and approval.

To provide greater assurance of the accuracy of manpower requirements 

reports produced by AWPS for use at Army industrial sites, we 

recommend that the Secretary of the Army direct AMC—with assistance 

as needed from USAMAA—to submit AWPS to USAMAA for review and 

validation as a manpower requirements determination tool, in accordance 

with Army regulations.

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 16 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

To complete the Army’s assessment of unnecessary overlap between 

AWPS and LMP and to ensure that a sound business decision is made 

on how to most cost-effectively provide AWPS functionality, we 

recommend that the Secretary of the Army direct the Commanding 

General, AMC, to take the following two actions:

• Identify a specific senior-level AMC manager or committee to provide 

increased leadership involvement and attention of the project team’s 

efforts, to include ensuring that a strong and stable team exists for 

managing change.

• Establish a fully developed and documented approach for the team’s 

assessment, including a milestone for completing it.

We requested comments from the Army, but none were provided.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Army. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix I.

Zina D. Merritt

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management

Agency Comments 
Page 17 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

List of Addressees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Coburn

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Chairman

Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Darrell Issa

Chairman

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Robert Wittman

Chairman

The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Readiness

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives
Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 18 GAO-14-266 Army Workload and Performance System

Zina D. Merritt, (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Thomas Gosling (Assistant 

Director), Joanne Landesman, Brian Mazanec, Alexis Olson, Geoffrey 

Peck, and Sabrina Streagle made key contributions to this report.

Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(351861)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.